Background of Indigenous Land Dispossession and Institutional Repatriation Efforts under NAGPRA
The relationship between U.S. institutions and Indigenous communities is deeply shaped by a long history of land dispossession and cultural erasure. From forced relocations and unequal treaties to policies like the Morrill Act of 1862, Indigenous lands were systematically seized to build state infrastructure—including the very universities and museums that now serve as stewards of American knowledge. While these institutions have long benefited from such legacies, the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 marked a critical turning point—mandating the return of Native American ancestral remains and cultural items. To understand current repatriation efforts, we must first trace how land was taken, how universities profited, and how restitution is now being pursued.
1. Indigenous Land Dispossession in the U.S.
Indigenous land dispossession in the U.S. refers to the historical and ongoing process of taking or using Indigenous land without consent, leading to significant loss of land, cultural disruption, and intergenerational trauma.
Source: Indigenous Land Dispossession
The history of Indigenous land dispossession began with European colonization and was institutionalized through federal policies such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830 (Library of Congress, n.d.) and later, the General Allotment Act of 1887 (Dawes Act) (National Archives, n.d.), which facilitated the transfer of tribal lands to white settlers and the federal government. During the 19th century, treaties—often signed under duress or later violated—were used to legitimize massive territorial seizures. By the early 20th century, the vast majority of Indigenous land had been taken.
Source: Andrew Jackson
Source: Dawes Act
As a result, almost all Indigenous peoples living in the eastern United States were forcibly relocated to the west, often confined to designated areas in Oklahoma, the Great Plains, and the intermontane basins (Watson, Schaetzl, Zelinsky, & Hoffman, 2025). Based on statistics, indigenous land holdings have been reduced by approximately 99% from their historical territories. Also, the lands to which Indigenous peoples were relocated are often more susceptible to climate change and possess fewer natural resources compared to their original territories. This forced migration not only led to significant cultural and economic disruptions but also placed Indigenous communities in environments that pose greater challenges for sustainability and resilience. (Farrell et al., 2021)
2. The Morrill Act of 1862 and Land-Grant Universities
The Morrill Act, signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on July 2, 1862, was a landmark piece of legislation that granted federal land to U.S. states to help fund the establishment of colleges focused on agriculture and the mechanic arts. The goal was to make higher education more accessible to the working class, especially in practical fields like farming, engineering, and military science, instead of being limited to classical studies available at elite institutions. (National Archives, n.d.)
Each eligible state received 30,000 acres of public land per Congressional representative, which could be sold to generate funding for at least one college. This law ultimately laid the foundation for the land-grant university system, which includes many of today’s major public universities (e.g., Cornell, MIT, Texas A&M, etc.). (National Archives, n.d.)
Source: Morrill Act
In recent years, scholars and advocates have increasingly scrutinized the legacy of the Morrill Act, particularly its role in facilitating the transfer of Indigenous lands to fund white-serving educational institutions. Research shows that these lands were often obtained through unjust treaties, land seizures, and coerced agreements, with little or no compensation provided to the Native communities involved (Goodluck, Ahtone, & Lee, 2020). Many universities continue to benefit from these historical injustices—not only through their physical occupation of Indigenous lands but also through the retention of Native remains and cultural artifacts, frequently without consultation or repatriation efforts (Stewart-Ambo, 2021).
While institutional accountability remains limited, some universities have begun to take preliminary steps toward reconciliation. These efforts include implementing land acknowledgment statements, offering scholarships for Indigenous students, returning portions of land to tribal nations, and developing collaborative language and cultural programs in partnership with Native communities (San Juan College, 2024; ESU, n.d.; LeBlanc, S., 2024; Walker, A. R., 2024). Such actions signal a growing, if still uneven, awareness of the need to address the enduring impacts of settler colonialism within higher education.
3. NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act)
NAGPRA stands for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, a federal law passed in the United States in 1990. It provides a legal process for federally funded institutions (like museums and universities) to return Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to affiliated tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations (National Park Service, 2024).
Source: NAGPRA
In 2024, the United States made significant strides in repatriating Native American human remains under the NAGPRA. According to ProPublica (Hudetz, 2025), over 10,300 ancestors were returned to tribal nations, making 2024 the third-largest repatriation year since NAGPRA was enacted in 1990. These actions reflect growing accountability and institutional commitment to complying with NAGPRA’s mandates, especially following new federal rules introduced in late 2023 to streamline and accelerate repatriation processes.
However, major gaps remain. As of early 2025, the ProPublica’s NAGPRA Repatriation Database indicates that approximately 42% of the reported Native American remains have not been made available for return (ProPublica, 2025), underscoring ongoing challenges in fully implementing NAGPRA’s mandates.
Source: ProPublica’s NAGPRA Repatriation Database
NAGPRA is not only about returning physical items—it is about respect, sovereignty, healing, and justice. It affirms Indigenous communities’ rights to their ancestors and sacred traditions, and challenges the colonial legacy of museums and academia.
4. Conclusion
Together, these three areas—land dispossession, the establishment of land-grant universities, and the legal framework of NAGPRA—form the historical and institutional backdrop against which our project is built. By contextualizing how land was taken and repurposed, and how current institutions respond to that legacy, we hope to shed light on patterns of institutional accountability and resistance. This background not only informs our visual analysis but also invites audiences to critically examine the ethical and historical responsibilities of universities and museums in confronting their colonial pasts and committing to genuine restitution.
References
Library of Congress. (n.d.). Indian Removal Act: Digital collections. https://guides.loc.gov/indian-removal-act/digital-collections
National Archives. (n.d.). Dawes Act (1887). U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dawes-act
Watson, J.W., Schaetzl, R.J., Zelinsky, W., Hoffman, P.F. (2025). North America. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/place/North-America
Farrell, J., Burow, P. B., McConnell, K., Bayham, J., Whyte, K., & Koss, G. (2021). Effects of land dispossession and forced migration on Indigenous peoples in North America. Science, 374(6567), eabe4943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe4943
National Archives. (n.d.). Morrill Act (1862). U.S. National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/morrill-act
Goodluck, K., Ahtone, T., & Lee, R. (2020). The land-grant universities still profiting off Indigenous homelands. High Country News. Retrieved from https://www.hcn.org/articles/indigenous-affairs-the-land-grant-universities-still-profiting-off-indigenous-homelands/
Stewart-Ambo, T. (2021). “We Can Do Better”: University Leaders Speak to Tribal-University Relationships. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 459–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220983583
San Juan College. (2024). 6 Ways Colleges Can Support Native American Students. https://www.sanjuancollege.edu/blog/college-programs-to-support-native-students/
East Stroudsburg University. (n.d.). Native American and Indigenous Students. https://www.esu.edu/diversity/native-american.cfm
LeBlanc, S. (2024). Brown University transfers ownership of a portion of its land to Pokanoket Indian Tribe. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/tribe-land-transfer-brown-university-40b683797342a5393fea5c78adbfdf03
Walker, A. R. (2024). A school banned Indigenous students from using their language. A century later, it’s teaching Cherokee. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/21/duke-university-cherokee-language
National Park Service. (2024). Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/index.htm
Hudetz, M. (2025). ProPublica updates its database of museums’ and universities’ compliance with federal repatriation law. ProPublica. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/native-american-remains-returned-repatriation-nagpra
ProPublica. (2025). Does your local museum or university still have Native American remains? Retrieved from https://projects.propublica.org/repatriation-nagpra-database/